npv708 wrote:I'm as much as a anti-war, peace-loving democrat as the next guy, but I'd love to see North Korea aggravate China enough for some military retaliation. Enough with this two-bit country so we can actually focus our military on threats from "real" countries.

As far as the CG is concerned, the cuts generally won't directly affect mission readiness/capability. With that being said, there is concern over some overlap. I have a friend that works at CGAS Miami, and there is significant concern over the proposed shuttering of the control tower at Opa-Locka Airfield, which is where they are located.

The way the sequester was done is a great indication of what our society has become. Let's say you finally hit a wall with you credit cards and you need to spend less. The smart idea would be to stop going out to diner every night and scale down on your cable package. Not this country. We will keep wasting money there but will drop our health insurance at work to save some money that way.

The cost of the single day of golf with Tiger Woods was more than enough to fund the White House tours for a year. That's where our priorities are.

In a matter that's kinda close to my heart, airshows all across the country are finding their headliners from the military are cancelling their appearances. Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, F/A-18, F-22, Heritage Flight (USAF) and Legacy Flight (USN) are all standing down. And they're often only able to give a week's notice to some venues.

This on the heels of last year's move by the USAF to stand down all their single-ship demonstrations; F-15E, F-16 East and West, and A-10 East and West all went away.

shafnutz05 wrote:Has anyone been following this story? I don't know how much of it is verified, but it sounds like it is.

I don't know if any other people who work in downtown Pittsburgh have noticed, but over the last six months I have seen DHS agents in tactical gear walking around downtown on numerous occasions. Kind of creepy.

pittsoccer33 wrote:I don't know if any other people who work in downtown Pittsburgh have noticed, but over the last six months I have seen DHS agents in tactical gear walking around downtown on numerous occasions. Kind of creepy.

Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.

Shyster wrote:Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.

Yes sir. I'm more concerned about an "internal invasion" than that of a foreign one.

Shyster wrote:Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.

Yes sir. I'm more concerned about an "internal invasion" than that of a foreign one.

Shyster wrote:Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.

Yes sir. I'm more concerned about an "internal invasion" than that of a foreign one.

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers.

Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:r[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

Remember the Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)

Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”

Shyster wrote:

shafnutz05 wrote:Has anyone been following this story? I don't know how much of it is verified, but it sounds like it is.

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

Shyster wrote:Indeed. The notion that the United States would be the subject of a foreign invasion is highly farfetched, if not ludicrous. Thus, when DHS is buying drones, MRAPS, machine guns, and billions of rounds of ammo, the most logical conclusion is that they are considering an eventuality where those items would be used against us. That is not a particularly palatable idea to contemplate.

Fwiw, I just looked through my phone log and the first day I saw the numerous operatives and black SUVs was on monday september 10th on grant street down town. I messaged a few friends about it and how eerie that seemed to me.

I think the most logical reason for an agency like that to go on a buying spree is that some senator in a state where they are making those rounds stuck some money in an appropriates bill as a kick back to his constituents. Like how we were making artillery pieces to protect our beaches from large scale amphibious assault into the beginning of the 21st century.

There is a pretty clear-cut progression of increasing domestic militarization over the last several decades. I don't necessarily think an attack is imminent, but I think they will be far more tempted to try out their new equipment if they have it.

shafnutz05 wrote:There is a pretty clear-cut progression of increasing domestic militarization over the last several decades. I don't necessarily think an attack is imminent, but I think they will be far more tempted to try out their new equipment if they have it.

shafnutz05 wrote:There is a pretty clear-cut progression of increasing domestic militarization over the last several decades. I don't necessarily think an attack is imminent, but I think they will be far more tempted to try out their new equipment if they have it.

That's an argument, which is eerily similar to one used by some gun control advocates.

Ben Franklin on bald eagles and turkeys. Pretty funny. Sorry if this quote is common knowledge in the States, I never heard it before.

"For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.

"With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country...

"I am on this account not displeased that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America... He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on."

shafnutz05 wrote:There is a pretty clear-cut progression of increasing domestic militarization over the last several decades. I don't necessarily think an attack is imminent, but I think they will be far more tempted to try out their new equipment if they have it.

That's an argument, which is eerily similar to one used by some gun control advocates.

Funny how that works.

Conversely, what pfidc said. Massive domestic militarization, combined with stronger and stronger calls for restrictions on private gun ownership. A few restrictions, which admittedly, I don't disagree with. However, when they are combined with said government militarization, suddenly my antennae perk up.